FILENAME: K:\H_BOISE\PROJFILE\19251 - US 20_SH 75 INTERSECTION STUDY\PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT\CAC\MEETING #3\SUMMARY\KN13075_US20-SH75_CAC MTG #3 SUMMARY.DOCX

Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting #3 Summary

October 5th, 2016, 10:00AM–12:00PM Blaine County Courthouse, Commissioners Large Conf. Room

206 1st Ave South, Suite #300, Hailey, ID 83333

WELCOME & RECAP Yuri welcomed the CAC. Bruce introduced the project and welcomed the CAC members. Rosemary had the CAC members introduce themselves and comment on what they have heard from the community about the study.

Meeting Attendees • Bruce Christensen (Idaho Transportation Department District 4) • Jade Sparrow (Blaine/Camas Farm Bureau) • Scott Malone (Idaho Transportation Department District 4) • Dan Gilmore (Power Engineers) • Jim Keating (Blaine County Recreation District) • Jack Sibbach (Sun Valley Resort) • Greg Cappel (Blaine County Resident) • Donna Pence (Idaho State Representative) • Gene Ramsey (Blaine County Sheriff) • Nathan Jerke (Idaho Transportation Department District 4 Public Information) • Jason Miller (Mountain Rides) • Chad Stoesz (Wood River Land Trust) • Robyn Mattison (City of Ketchum) • Ken Worthington (Blaine County Resident) • Desiree Fawn (News reporter) – check sign-in sheet • Yuri Mereszczak (Kittelson & Associates. Inc.) • Rosemary Curtin (RBCI) • Andy Daleiden (Kittelson & Associates. Inc.)

What have you heard?

• Support for grade-separated interchange • Support for roundabout • Increase size of signs at the intersection

MEETING OBJECTIVE: Review the Draft Intersection Study Report to ensure all key conclusions and findings are incorporated and implementation recommendations are consistent with the outcomes of the study process.

US 20 & SH 75 (Timmerman Jct.) Intersection Study – CAC Meeting #3 Summary Project #: 19251 October 5, 2016 Page 2

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Boise, Idaho

• Consider bicycle traffic • Surprise for a roundabout more urban treatment, but understand why • Some people were not aware of the meetings • Roundabout seems really slow; more city/urban treatment versus rural • An educational component is necessary regardless of which alternative is chosen • Pretty diverse opinions of what should be there; let’s just build it now. • Recent changes at the intersection have been beneficial; move ahead with some incremental

improvements and then the roundabout • Intersection improvements should minimize impacts to the aesthetics and rural nature of the

area General Questions

• What have we heard about the 36th/Hill roundabout in Boise? o Larger roundabout o Mobility has been improved o Crossings work for pedestrians o Extensive public outreach was done prior to and during construction

A PowerPoint presentation and display boards were used to help discuss topics during the meeting. Additionally, agendas, draft reports, and concepts of the alternatives were provided on each table for the meeting attendees.

Yuri reviewed the following items with the CAC: • CAC Roles & Responsibilities • Study Purpose & Goals • Tiered Alternatives Evaluation Process • Study Schedule

Yuri noted appreciation for the strong attendance from the CAC, SMT, and community-at-large throughout the study.

ITD has recently shortened the 45mph posted speed zone downstream from the intersection as direct result of comments from the CAC.

SMT & CAC MEETING #2 FOLLOW-UP ITEMS Bruce presented an overview of the safety comparison of the US-20/SH-75 intersection to other similar intersections in Idaho. This item was brought up at the last CAC meeting. The question was asked as to what “benchmark” should be used for comparison. An average crash rate of 1.0/million entering vehicles is a general industry rule-of-thumb for an “expected” rate of crashes per million entering vehicles at an intersection similar to US-20/SH-75. The subject intersection is slightly higher than 1.0 and falls in the middle of comparative intersections within Idaho. Yuri presented on the deceleration of trucks traveling down Timmerman Hill toward the intersection, based on deceleration information from the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The

US 20 & SH 75 (Timmerman Jct.) Intersection Study – CAC Meeting #3 Summary Project #: 19251 October 5, 2016 Page 3

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Boise, Idaho

CAC members felt that this additional information was helpful in addressing questions from CAC Meeting #2.

ONLINE SURVEY SUMMARY Yuri presented a summary of study’s the online survey held in August 2016. A significant number of responses were received from the community on the survey (762 people participated, with 551 completing the survey in full). There was discussion from the CAC on the survey regarding the traffic signal, roundabout, and grade-separated interchange alternatives. All of these alternatives and the addition of turn lanes on SH-75 received a good amount of support.

OVERVIEW OF DRAFT INTERSECTION STUDY REPORT & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Yuri reviewed the key conclusions & outcomes, implementation plan summary, and implementation plan considerations from the Draft Intersection Study Report. Key highlights from the presentation include:

• No-Build Alternative o Recent changes at the intersection have been beneficial o The crash data and operations support a no build alternative in the near term o SMT ranked this alternative as #1 o CAC ranked this alternative at #3 o General public ranked this alternative as #6.

• Remove the Intersection Skew Alternative

o Could address some of the angle-type crashes at the intersection o Could be phased in conjunction with the roundabout o SMT ranked this alternative as #3 o CAC ranked this alternative at #1 (tie) o General public ranked this alternative as #5.

• Roundabout Alternative

o Best addresses the primary goals of the study and provides the best safety performance

o SMT ranked this alternative as #2 o CAC ranked this alternative at #1 (tie) o General public ranked this alternative as #4

• Grade-Separated Interchange Alternative (Right-of-Way Preservation Only)

o Continue to maintain the ROW at the intersection o B/C ratio does not support implementation of a grade separated interchange within

the planning horizon of the study o SMT ranked this alternative as #7 o CAC ranked this alternative at #6 o General public ranked this alternative as #3.

US 20 & SH 75 (Timmerman Jct.) Intersection Study – CAC Meeting #3 Summary Project #: 19251 October 5, 2016 Page 4

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Boise, Idaho

Other comments/notes/questions from the CAC:

• Traffic would slow down with the roundabout alternative. What about trucks traveling north and south on SH-75? How would truck speeds be impacted with the roundabout?

o Yuri discussed the impact of the intersection on acceleration up Timmerman Hill. Given the grade is relatively flat for the first ½ mile south of the intersection (average grade of ~1% prior to the steeper grade up the hill). Most trucks will be able to accelerate from the intersection to a reasonable running speed prior to the steeper grade up the hill regardless of stopping/slowing at the intersection. Therefore, providing a passing lane up the hill is considered mostly unrelated to what occurs at the intersection, but it is discussed in the report for future consideration by ITD.

• Perception of safety issues versus reality o The data is important to look at and the data does not depict problems with safety

much beyond that typically expected at an intersection such as US-20/SH-75. However, ITD and the study team acutely recognize that many members of the community have been impacted at this intersection and therefore safety problems are a reality for them. This study is a good start to identifying improvements to enhance the safety performance of the intersection.

• What does ITD think about the video monitoring of the intersection idea? o This may be good to do especially during the winter and summer months due to the

seasonal variation in traffic at this intersection. It provides an opportunity to learn more about occurrences at the intersection beyond just what the crash data and operational analysis reveal.

OPEN DISCUSSION & WORKSESSION ON DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The CAC completed comment sheets in response to the Draft Implementation Plan for the study. Each CAC member present at the meeting completed a comment sheet and one CAC member not present at the meeting also completed a comment sheet. On the comment sheets, CAC members indicated whether they support or do not support the recommended improvement and were asked to provide an explanation for their choice. Table 1 provides a summary of the comment sheets provided by the CAC members and the raw comment sheets are provided with the attachments to this summary.

US 20 & SH 75 (Timmerman Jct.) Intersection Study – CAC Meeting #3 Summary Project #: 19251 October 5, 2016 Page 5

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Boise, Idaho

Table 1: Summary of CAC Comments on Draft Implementation Plan

Recommended Improvement (Time Frame) Support

Do Not Support Summary of Comments

No Build (Short-Term to Mid-Term) 8 2

• A change is needed now. • Current needs are being met, but a build option should be planned for

long-term. • Continue to look for short-term, low cost improvements. • Video monitoring is a good idea for near-term.

Remove Skew (Centered) (Short-Term to Mid-Term) 4 4

• Not enough support; not worth the cost. • Generally an unneeded step, but has some benefit to future

roundabout. • Cost effective; some safety improvement. • Support option, but less so than the roundabout.

Single-Lane Roundabout with Approach Curvature (Short-Term to Long-Term)

9 1

• Best overall, long-term option with potential for aesthetic benefit as well. Balances safety improvement and cost.

• Some support, but may still need another longer range improvement. • Need a public relations effort to help citizens be more in support. • Traffic calming improvement that optimizes safety.

Grade-Separated Diamond Interchange (Very Long-Term) Right-of-Way Preservation Only

51 21

• Not necessary. Little safety benefit with large visual/environmental impact. Too costly.

• Preserve ROW for this option, especially in case population increases. • Best overall option for traffic flow and safety, but cost may make this

difficult to prioritize. Short-Term = 0-5 years; Mid-Term = 5-15 years; Long-Term = 15-25 years; Very Long-Term = 25+ years 1If “Do Not Support” was circled, but the respondent noted support for preservation of right-of-way, then that was tallied as “Support” as the Implementation Plan explicitly identifies this alternative only for right-of-way preservation. NEXT STEPS & CLOSEOUT No future meetings planned as a part of this study Final Intersection Study Report available by November 2016 ITD will keep public informed of next steps Thank you for your participation!! ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: CAC Meeting #3 Sign-In Sheet Attachment B: CAC Meeting #2 Comment Sheets CAC Meeting #3 Materials are available on the study website at:

http://itd.idaho.gov/projects/D4/US20_ID75_IntersectionStudy/

Attachment A CAC Meeting #3 Sign-In Sheet

Attachment B CAC Meeting #3 Comment Sheets